Latest news with #TenthDistrictCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court says Ohio legislative effort to block local tobacco laws unconstitutional
An Ohio appeals court has unanimously decided that efforts by state lawmakers to prevent city governments from regulating tobacco products are unconstitutional. The Tenth District Court of Appeals, which covers Franklin County and hears many state government-related court cases, ruled July 8 that the Ohio General Assembly's attempt to bar Columbus and other cities from enacting their own rules about what types of tobacco products can be sold within their limits violated the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution. Among other things, the Home Rule Amendment gives local governments the autonomy to enact ordinances related to the safety and welfare of their residents, including matters involving local police, sanitary, and other similar regulations, provided they don't contradict state laws. By 2023, Columbus and other cities had passed ordinances that regulated how flavored tobacco products were sold to snuff out swelling teen use of the products. The state legislature, in response, added an amendment state's 2023 budget bill to prevent cities from doing so. Gov. Mike DeWine twice vetoed the section, but state lawmakers voted to override the governor, in essence nullifying efforts by the cities. City Attorney Zach Klein's office filed a lawsuit against the state on behalf of Columbus and multiple other cities and municipalities in Ohio to prevent the law from taking effect. Klein, DeWine and others had argued for flavored tobacco bans, as well as limits on the sale of e-cigarettes, because of a rise in nicotine use among teenagers that threatened decades-long anti-tobacco efforts. The arguments also said sales of flavored tobacco, like menthol cigarettes, have targeted minorities and low-income people. Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge Mark Serrott sided with the cities, saying the way the Ohio law is written violates the Ohio Constitution's provision that allows municipalities to govern themselves. The state appealed, and the Tenth District Appeals Court agreed with the cities. In a decision written by Judge David Leland, the appeals court said the state is trying to claim "exclusive power to regulate tobacco," which creates problems beyond where flavored tobacco is sold. "Cities would lose the power to enforce their tobacco laws, both criminal and civil. They would lose authority to keep city parks free of tobacco," Leland writes. "They could no longer regulate tobacco marketing. Licensing and zoning of convenience stores that sell tobacco products might be invalidated. Cities could do nothing to stem the sale of flavored tobacco products, no matter the addictive or mortal effects of the tobacco industry's targeted advertising to children or other demographic groups." Mayor Andrew J. Ginther told The Dispatch that he was encouraged by the decision. 'I'm glad the judges support the Ohio Constitution, that clearly states that home rule is a core principle of governing in this state. We have always said that local knows best,' Ginther said. 'The tobacco industry has disproportionately targeted young people, people of color and poor and disadvantaged communities and we feel like this is a smart and appropriate thing to do to protect kids. The governor stands with us on this.' The state can appeal the Tenth Court of Appeals decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. Steve Irwin, a spokesperson for Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, said Yost's office is reviewing the decision and will talk about what next steps may be taken. The district appeals court is comprised of eight judges, three of whom hear cases as a panel and rule at a time. All of those judges are Democrats. Six of the Ohio Supreme Court's seven justices are Republicans, with Justice Jennifer Brunner being the lone Democrat. (This story has been updated to include comments from public officials.) Dispatch reporter Jordan Laird contributed to this story. Reporter Bethany Bruner can be reached at bbruner@ or on Bluesky at @ This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Ohio court sides with cities in state tobacco law dispute
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Youth transgender care ban still in effect while appeal plays out, Ohio Supreme Court rules
Apr. 29—The Ohio Supreme Court issued a ruling Tuesday allowing the state to continue a ban on gender-affirming care for youth while Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost appeals a lower court's decision. In March, the Tenth District Court of Appeals found House Bill 68 ― which prevents LGBTQ+ minors from accessing care such as hormone blockers, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and some mental health services ― to be unconstitutional. The appellate court ordered a trial court to enter a permanent injunction blocking it. The trial court, the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, never issued the injunction, so the ban on gender-affirming care for youth in Ohio has continued, ACLU of Ohio said. In appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court, Yost asked the court to pause the injunction while his appeal with the high court plays out. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the request on Tuesday. "It is a terrible shame that the Supreme Court of Ohio is permitting the state to evade compliance with the Ohio Constitution," said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio. The lawsuit was first filed on March 26, 2024 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Ohio, and the global law firm Goodwin on behalf of two families who said their transgender adolescents would be negatively impacted by House Bill 68. Both families were seeking access to gender-affirming care, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy, describing plans to seek care in Chicago and Michigan if the ban took place, which it did. "Our clients have suffered tangible and irreparable harm during the eight months that HB 68 has been in place, including being denied essential health care in their home state," Levenson said. On Aug. 6, 2024, following a five-day trial in July, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rejected the plaintiffs' challenge and allowed the ban on gender-affirming care to take effect. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on their argument that House Bill 68 violates the Ohio Constitution, with which a three-judge panel at the 10th District Court of Appeals agreed on two points and rendered the other two points as moot. A comment from Yost was not immediately available.
Washington Post
18-03-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Ohio court overturns state ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth
A state appeals court overturned Ohio's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, preserving access to such treatments in Ohio and the latest development in a year-long battle over the law. A three-judge panel on the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the ban is 'unconstitutional on its face' and imposed a permanent injunction on the statute — which means families of transgender children will be able to access gender-affirming medical treatments, such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy, within the state. 'We find a minor's access to puberty blockers and hormone therapy to treat gender dysphoria … is the type of medical decision parents have a fundamental interest in making on behalf of their children,' the judges wrote. 'Such a sweeping and inflexible ban on parents' ability to access medical care for their children is not narrowly tailored to advance the state's articulated interest: the protection of children.' The legal battle is likely to continue — with the case appearing before the Ohio Supreme Court — as state leaders immediately promised to challenge the ruling. 'We are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay. There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children,' Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement Tuesday. 'Ohio's elected representatives properly passed legislation protecting children from irreversible chemical sex change procedures, and the trial court upheld the law.' Trans rights advocates rejoiced over the appeals court's decision. Many of them have battled the statute since its introduction in the Ohio Statehouse more than a year ago. 'This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians,' said Freda Levenson, legal director at the ACLU of Ohio, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. 'Although this litigation will likely not end here, we remain fervently committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect.' The 10th District Court of Appeals' ruling on Tuesday follows a lengthy clash over the Ohio law, which split the state's Republican Party and has left some Ohio families in a lurch — debating whether to move out of state or anxiously await court rulings. The Ohio Statehouse in December 2023 passed the Saving Adolescents From Experimentation Act, or SAFE Act, which prohibited hormone therapy, puberty blockers and gender-reassignment surgery for people under 18. The measure also prohibited transgender girls from playing on sports teams designated for girls and women in high school and college, known as the Save Women's Sports Act. Gov. Mike DeWine (R) spent nearly two weeks consulting medical professionals and families with transgender children, ultimately vetoing the bill and breaking from fellow Republican governors on the issue of gender-affirming care. Ohio legislators in January 2024 overrode DeWine's veto, making the bill law. In March 2024, two families sued in Franklin County Court to stop the ban. In August, Franklin County Judge Michael J. Holbrook upheld the law, allowing the ban to go into effect — which the American Civil Liberties Union and its Ohio chapter appealed. The 10th District Court of Appeals's decision on Tuesday allows families of trans youth to resume gender-affirming care in the state. 'Today is a great day for trans youth, justice, and the people of Ohio. It is proof of a system under attack but not destroyed by ignorant hatred. We don't know what the future holds, but today it is once again legal in Ohio to receive and provide most gender-affirming care at any age, in alignment with international best practices,' said Dara Adkison, executive director of advocacy group TransOhio. National medical associations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have said gender-affirming care for trans children is medically necessary and appropriate. But the issue has been a flash point nationwide. President Donald Trump on the campaign trail promised to drive 'transgender insanity' out of schools. Since taking office, his administration has taken aim at protections for transgender people, including signing an executive order attempting to end federal support for gender-transition care for people under the age of 19. Meanwhile, nearly two dozen states have passed bills similar to Ohio's. Proponents argue that such measures protect children's health; opponents argue that the bills are not supported by science and infringe on transgender people's rights. Like Ohio's, many bans are mired in legal challenges. Supreme Court justices in December heard oral arguments in a case challenging a Tennessee law that bans gender transition care for youth — the first opportunity the justices have to consider the constitutionality of such restrictions. The high court's decision could determine whether gender-affirming care bans across the nation will stand.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Appeals court overturns part of Ohio law banning trans healthcare for youth
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — An Ohio court has overturned part of the state's law banning certain healthcare for transgender youth, allowing patients to again receive prescriptions like puberty blockers and hormone therapy drugs. A three-judge panel on the Tenth District Court of Appeals decided on Tuesday to reverse part of House Bill 68, Ohio's law banning gender-affirming care for minors, and said the law needs to again undergo review by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. The panel argued that the county court should impose a permanent injunction against H.B. 68's provision banning certain prescriptions that assist youth when transitioning. 'Having found that H.B. 68's prescription ban infringes on parents' fundamental right to direct the medical care of their children and authorize treatment for gender dysphoria with puberty blockers and hormone therapy subject to medically accepted standards, we conclude strict scrutiny applies,' the ruling states. Tuesday's ruling follows an August decision from Franklin County Commons Pleas Judge Michael Holbrook that said H.B. 68 could go into effect after being on hold for several months. The ACLU of Ohio then appealed Holbrook's decision on behalf of two families whose children are at risk of losing access to their healthcare. 'This win restores the right of trans youth in Ohio to choose vitally important health care, with the support of their families and physicians,' said Freda Levenson, Legal Director at the ACLU of Ohio, on Tuesday. 'Although this litigation will likely not end here, we remain fervently committed to preventing this egregious bill from ever again taking effect. The path towards protecting the rights and civil liberties of trans Ohioans goes on.' The appeals court's ruling does not impact H.B. 68's ban on gender-affirming surgery for minors and prohibition against trans female athletes' participation in women's sports. The court reiterated that the appellants 'are not directing a challenge toward those parts of H.B. 68 that prohibit surgical procedures and have not claimed they would be adversely affected by enforcement of H.B. 68's sports provisions.' Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement the state will appeal the decision and seek an immediate stay, promising 'this is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children.' 'Ohio's elected representatives properly passed legislation protecting children from irreversible chemical sex change procedures, and the trial court upheld the law,' Yost said. 'But now the 10th district court of appeals has just greenlighted these permanent medical interventions against minors.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Appeals court rolls back Ohio gender affirming care law
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKBN) – The Tenth District Court of Appeals has ruled against Ohio and its stance on limiting gender-affirming care for minors and issued a permanent injunction. The appeal surrounded the ban on gender-affirming pharmaceutical medical care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The law bans transgender surgeries and hormone therapies for minors unless they are already receiving such therapies and it is deemed a risk to stop by a doctor. The Court ruled Tuesday that the trial court erred in its favorable ruling on the law saying that the trial court did not apply 'rational basis review' to parents' claim that they had a right to provide care to their child that has been recommended by a medical professional. 'Such a sweeping and inflexible ban on parents' ability to access medical care for their children is not narrowly tailored to advance the state's articulated interest: the protection of children. Applying strict scrutiny. (The law) facially violates Ohio parents' right to substantive due process under the Due Course of Law Clause of the Ohio Constitution,' Judge Carly Edelstein wrote in her decision. Edelstein added that the law violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constitution because it puts medical professionals in danger of discipline for providing care that is 'in accordance with the standards of care and guidelines widely accepted in the professional medical community,' and care that is being requested by parents on behalf of their children. Ohio Attorney General David Yost immediately issued a statement on the court's decision saying he would continue to fight for the ban. 'This is a no brainer – we are appealing that decision and will seek an immediate stay. There is no way I'll stop fighting to protect these unprotected children,' Yost wrote. Yost accused the court of going against what Ohio voters wanted when the law was passed and lawmakers agreed they wanted to limit medical inventions for minors. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
